Fall River, Somerset Reps Silvia and Thurber vote against giving doctors full discretion on abortions after 6 months in Massachusetts

In a 119 to 33 vote, the Massachusetts House passed Bill 5595, titled “An Act prioritizing patient access to care,” that gives physicians full discretion for abortions after 24 weeks and reduces some of the existing procedural and facility restrictions.

State Reps Alan Silvia (Fall River’s south end) and Justin Thurber (Somerset, Dighton and east Swansea) voted no, Rep. Steven Ouellette (East Fall River, Freetown, Westport, Acushnet and New Bedford) voted yes, and Carole Fiola (Central and north Fall River, and Freetown) did not vote.

“It was filed by female legislators to address a loophole that forced women to seek out of state alternative treatment,” said Rep. Ouellette. “In speaking to constituents and fellow legislators it was needed. If you look at the vote results, you will see almost all the female legislators voted for it. No one should know about the impact or needs of this legislation than the people who it affects or may have had an experience in the past.”

Rep. Alan Silvia had a very different view.

“Attempts to expand Abortion in Massachusetts from 24 weeks to birth is a yearly event,” said Silvia. “Abortion was once tolerated and is now celebrated. We do all we can in Massachusetts to save baby whales and stray cats yet we murder thousands of unborn children and in many cases the taxpayer pays for it. I’m opposed to any expansion of abortion.”

Rep. Justin Thurber sided with Silvia.

“I voted against H.5595 because it removes existing limits on abortions after 24 weeks,  replacing clear medical criteria (threat to mothers life or Jerusalem l lethal/ grave fetal diagnosis) with a system that let’s a single physician approve the abortion based solely on their judgement, said Thurber. “This bill effectively allows abortion of potentially viable fetuses up to birth with no safeguards or second opinion requirements.”

Under current law, such abortions are allowed only in specific situations: to preserve the pregnant person’s life, to protect physical or mental health, or because of certain severe fetal anomalies. The bill removes those limited criteria. Instead, it permits a physician to perform the procedure based solely on their professional judgment.

It also states that no medical review process can override the decision of the treating physician and the patient (or the patient’s health-care proxy).

In addition, it eliminates the requirement that these later abortions (except in emergencies) must take place in a hospital authorized to provide obstetrical services, and it drops certain annual reporting requirements for facilities.

In total eight Democrat state representatives went against their own party and voted no.

The Massachusetts Senate is taking up their own version of the bill.

Rep. Fiola did not respond for comment by the time this article was published.